Islam OnlineStrongly Islamist, generally supports the government of Sudan. Know the other side..

Al-Ahram WeeklyFrom the editor: "providing as honest and objective a look at contemporary Egyptian and Arab reality as possible -- as seen through Egyptian and Arab eyes."

Sudan - News and Analysis by Eric ReevesBy far the best independent analysis of the developing situation--and usually much more pessimistic than official accounts. Also usually proves to be more accurate.

The Passion of the Present (the essay)

-

In Darfur, a region in western Sudan approximately the size of Texas, over a million people are threatened with torture and death at the hands of marauding militia and a complicit government. Genocide evokes not only the moral, but also, the legal responsibility of the world community. Under international agreement, a nation must intervene to stop a genocide when it is officially acknowledged.

"Officially" is the key word here. So far, no nation in the international community has "officially" acknowledged the truth: Sudan is a bleeding ground of genocide. In this void, the Sudanese government continues to act with brutal impunity.

Thankfully, there are individuals working
in human rights organizations who are watching - and witnessing - and organizing, in support of the victims in Darfur. These individuals represent,
for all of us, a personal capacity to bear witness to the passion
of the present; one candle lit against the darkness.

However, before one can light a candle,
someone has to strike a match:
a donation to any of the human rights organizations active in Sudan, contacting your government representative, local newspaper, radio and t.v. station. Our individual activism is essential for the candlepower of witness to overcome and extinguish the firepower of genocide.

This world has long endured wars that take lives. Let us be part of one that saves them.

About: The Passion of the Present site is a totally non-profit labor of love and hope - in peace. Thanks for joining the effort.

About this blog

Our name comes from an essay entitled "The Passion of the Present" that one of our grassroots founders wrote and circulated by email in March of 2004. The blog started at the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School.

The editors are semi-anonymous in order to keep the focus on Sudan. This site is a resource for a blog-based information community now numbering several hundred interlinked bloggers and sites. Visitors come from around the world. Daily traffic ranges from just under a thousand visitors, to more than eight thousand on days when news attention peaks.

Our technology cost for a public blog service, with no special discount, is still just $13.46 per month! Start a blog if you don't have one already!

Peace talks set up to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in the western Sudanese region of Darfur took a small step forward Wednesday when face-to-face talks began between the warring government and rebel forces, African Union officials said.

"Direct negotiation among the parties started today at the level of commission. The first commission that met this morning was the commission on power sharing," Nourredine Mezni told AFP.

"AU chief negotiator Salim Ahmed Salim has urged all the parties to speed up the negotiating process so that agreements could be quickly reached on the issues slated for discussion," he said.

From next week the commissions -- committees set up to pursue narrower agendas alongside the main talks -- will meet three times per day instead of once, he added.

Mezni also welcomed the news that the rebel Sudanese Liberation Movement (SLM) had sent a single delegation to the meeting. Previous talks have been delayed because of splits in rebel ranks.

The AU launched a seventh round of peace talks on the crisis on Tuesday, when delegates expressed optimism that the latest meeting would finally bring an end to 33 months of bloodshed.

Previous negotiations between the Sudanese government and two rebel movements have been undermined by regular ceasefire violations, and the United Nations has warned that the Darfur region is falling into chaos, with murder, robbery and rape on the increase.

UN agencies estimate that the crisis triggered by the conflict has left 300,000 dead and driven two million people from their homes into refugee camps which are prey to disease and militia raids.

War broke out in February 2003 when the rebels began fighting what they say is the political and economic marginalisation of the region's black African tribes by the Arab-led regime in Khartoum.

At the sixth round of talks the parties accepted general principles on power sharing and human rights, but made little concrete progress towards a broader agreement.

Despite continuing insecurity, IDPs in Darfur are starting to return home. UNHCR and other agencies involved in their assistance and protection must ensure that the principles of voluntariness, safety and dignity are adhered to.

On 5 July 2005, a Declaration of Principles for the Resolution of the Sudanese Conflict in Darfur was signed in Abuja by the Sudanese government, the Sudan Liberation Movement and the smaller Justice and Equality Movement. Although this is unquestionably the most concrete step towards peace so far, doubts remain as to how this commitment in principle will be translated into reality. IDPs in Darfur continue to suffer violence and rape, forced recruitment and abuse of children, banditry and tension over scarce resources. The presence of African Union civilian police appears to have contributed to a relative improvement in security but the situation remains unpredictable and volatile. The Secretary-General’s report on Darfur of 18 July states that "Darfur may be a less active war zone than it was a year ago, but violations of human rights continue to occur frequently, and active combat has been replaced by a suffocating environment of intimidation and fear, perpetuated by ever-present militias." Even if the commitment to peace of the parties involved is genuine and fighting subsides, reconciliation and reconstruction will be a lengthy process.

Nevertheless, a small number of people are returning home to their villages, often in precarious circumstances, hoping to rebuild their lives. Some of these return movements are of a local nature, from village centre to outlying settlements, while others are over longer distances, within and between the three Darfur regions. Some movements have also taken place from the Chadian border area. As far as UNHCR has been able to monitor, most of these returns are proving successful.

Those who return are in dire need of humanitarian assistance. UNHCR’s decision to assist those returning initially provoked criticism as it was feared that this would create false expectations among IDPs about the feasibility of return. This concern is not wholly unjustified and it is consequently all the more important that UNHCR strictly applies the principles of voluntariness, safety and dignity, maintaining a strict division between facilitation and promotion and insisting on complete transparency.

UNHCR has extensive experience with respect to voluntary repatriation and has developed a basic framework of standards for all repatriation operations.(4) Adhering to these standards has been a challenge, not because of the principles themselves – which are clear and firmly rooted in human rights law – but because repatriation movements are inevitably influenced by political forces. Repatriation is seen as evidence of political stability of the areas of origin. It lessens the burden on the hosting areas and may simply be a cheaper option than continuing to provide assistance at the place of refuge. Repatriation is therefore likely to be seen as the best possible solution by both countries of origin and asylum, as well as donor countries.

The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, if properly applied, will protect individuals against hasty, badly organised or even forced repatriation. Principle 28 reiterates key standards used in refugee repatriation: voluntariness of return, and in conditions of safety and dignity. A major challenge is to make these standards operational.

The Principles in operation

In refugee protection, ‘voluntariness’ is widely regarded as the fundamental basis of repatriation and the best assurance against refoulement. Far from being merely the opposite of ‘forced’, voluntariness represents the individual’s ability to decide that the conditions that made him/her leave no longer exist, or at least not to the extent that warrants protection elsewhere. It is also a pragmatic requirement, as voluntary return is far more likely to be sustainable.

Access to the internally displaced is a primary requirement for ensuring voluntariness. Although decisions to flee can be taken in response to a mass movement, and return can also be decided as a group, it is important to consider the individual when assessing voluntariness. The individual’s initial reason for flight needs to be understood in order to verify to what extent the reasons have ceased to exist or at least have evolved sufficiently to warrant return. For the condition of voluntariness to be met, the deciding factor for return needs to be the positive pull factor of the place of origin, rather than pressure from the area of refuge. This would usually entail an improvement in conditions in the area of origin, although there may be other reasons why an individual wants to return, such as family reunion. UNHCR considers the core of voluntary repatriation to be return – with dignity – in and to conditions of physical, legal and material safety.

Where hostilities are ongoing or a general breakdown in law and order persists, return would normally not be facilitated. Physical safety would require some form of assurances from the authorities, supported by the international community where necessary. Legal safety involves the removal of legal and administrative barriers to return. This could include the declaration of amnesties and assistance in the restoration of housing, land and property rights. Material safety implies availability of the means of survival and basic services, such as potable water, health and education.

In order to be able to make a free choice, IDPs must have access to accurate, objective and up-to-date information on the situation in areas of return. Ideally, return monitoring will be established as soon as returns commence in order to collect information for potential returnees and to assess the needs and protect the rights of returnees. Factors pushing – rather than pulling – IDPs to return may involve intimidation, incentives to encourage departure or other undue pressure. Among the most important elements in the verification of voluntariness are the status and condition of the person in the area of refuge. If the person has found no protection, if his/her rights are not respected, the person may decide to return but it will not be a free choice. Furthermore, the level of pressure that collective intent may place on an individual should be considered.

The concept of ‘dignity’ in return has not been clearly defined. The concept will vary between different cultures and assumptions should not be made. An approach that ensures the effective participation of the internally displaced will go a long way towards meeting the requirement of dignity.

Stages of repatriation

UNHCR makes a distinction between different phases of return: spontaneous, facilitated and promoted. It is important that UNHCR – and any other humanitarian actors involved in return – determine explicitly under what conditions they will be involved in the different stages of return and what activities will constitute such involvement. For each stage there needs to be a list of benchmarks to be met before supporting return. Such benchmarks need to be guided by the degree to which conditions conducive for return – i.e. physical, legal and material safety – have been met. Where IDPs return spontaneously, UNHCR can assist in the areas of return, if access exists. Facilitation can occur upon the specific and fully informed request of IDPs, even if UNHCR does not consider that, objectively, it is safe for most to return. Promotion of return will only occur if and when conditions are considered conducive for return in safety and dignity.

Decisions by the international community to facilitate or promote return must not only be taken with due consideration of all relevant factors but must also be clearly explained and communicated to all actors, including IDPs themselves. Failure to do so may create false impressions about the conditions for return, which in turn risks jeopardising its voluntary nature.

Mathijs Le Rutte is a Senior Legal Officer with the Department of International Protection, UNHCR, Geneva. The views expressed in this article are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of UNHCR or the UN. Email: lerutte@unhcr.org

The Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) for Sudan has signed an agreement with the southern government to disburse US $20 million for emergency programmes in the region, where a 21-year civil war left two million people dead.

"On Friday, we [the World Bank and the southern Ministry of Finance] signed a grant agreement in Juba [the capital of southern Sudan] for an emergency package for south Sudan," Ishac Diwan, World Bank country director for Ethiopia and Sudan, said on Saturday in Nairobi.

"This is the first MDTF money that is being disbursed in Sudan," he added.

The MDTF, which pools resources from various donors into one common fund, is administered by the World Bank with an oversight committee that includes Sudanese authorities, the United Nations and major donors.

It will provide harmonised funding for priority areas that have been identified by the governments of national unity and southern Sudan.

"It is a unique collaboration between the World Bank, the two Sudanese governments, the donors and the United Nations," Diwan noted.

"It aims to avoid the so-called ‘donor circus’, where every donor wants to plant its own flag on a project, resulting in gaps in coverage," he explained. "It also tries to build the capacity in governments, rather than go through NGOs."

The emergency package totalling $27 million - with $20 million coming from the MDTF and $7 million from the southern Sudan government - will be used for books, medication, equipment for the new government offices in Juba and the 10 southern states, and the services of an international company to handle procurement.

"All the development contracts of the government of Sudan will be transparent, and government procurement will be done according to World Bank procedures," Diwan noted.

In addition, three programmes - one in the south and two in the north - have been prepared for agreement in December, he added, while budgets and priorities for programmes to be implemented in 2006 have been set.

A $150 million programme for the south, two-thirds of which would be funded from the government's own resources, would focus on infrastructure development and urban rehabilitation.

The MDTF strategy in the north, Diwan added, would focus on assisting the poor and on decentralisation. The initial $20 million programme would focus on community development in war-affected areas.

Priority areas for 2006 will include disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration; national transport; food security; capacity building in health and education; and rural development.

During the Oslo donor conference for Sudan in April, the Netherlands made the largest initial pledge to the fund ($195 million), followed by Norway ($100 million) and the UK ($80 million).

Of those pledges, however, the MDTF had only received $102 million in cash so far.

The southern government had chosen a broad development strategy to achieve progress across the region, Diwan noted.

Southern Sudan lags behind the rest of the country in terms of institutional capacity and socioeconomic development, with key education and health indicators among the worst in the world.

During Sudan’s six-year interim period, which began on 9 July, the emphasis would shift from humanitarian assistance to recovery - focusing on the consolidation and extension of peace - to long-term development.

After the interim period, the south will hold a referendum to decide whether to remain part of a united Sudan or secede.

Massachusetts lawmakers made an international statement last week when they suggested banning the state pension board from investing in companies conducting business in conflict-ridden Sudan.

An estimated 400,000 civilians in Sudan have been killed since February 2003, when a government-sponsored militia, the Janjaweed, began massacring civilians in the Darfur region, which the government deemed disloyal to Sudan, according to the Save Darfur Coalition.

Massachusetts is following the lead of New Jersey and Illinois, two other states that have already passed legislation to divest money in Sudan after President George W. Bush labeled the atrocities in Sudan as genocide. Harvard University, Stanford University and Dartmouth College have all taken steps to divest in companies doing business in Sudan.

"The ongoing genocide in Sudan is a humanitarian crisis that has affected millions of people," Nuciforo said in a press release. "One way in which the Commonwealth can have an impact is to ensure that state pension funds are not contributing, in any way, to this tragedy."

The bill calls for the state pension board to sell any stocks or securities of companies that are engaged in business with the Sudanese government. The Pension Reserves Investment Management Board, or PRIM, which is a pooled investment fund of the assets of retired teachers and retired state employees, is responsible for trying to maximize the return on their investments to provide the highest possible pension.

According to Andrew Schuyler, Nucifro's chief of staff, the senator wants to ensure that the pensions of state employees will be protected but feels that Massachusetts has a moral obligation to shun the genocide.

"The senator wants to ensure that state employees would like to see their investments working financially and also in a way that represents our values," Schuyler said.

Of the $39 billion in total assets held by the state pension board, an estimated $1.4 billion is invested in 83 companies that do business with Sudan, according to Sen. Edward Augustus, Jr. (D-Worcester).

Augustus said he believed the divestment plans would not hinder the board's responsibilities and might even create greater economic opportunities.

"We would just invest the money in other companies that could have even greater a return or better that wouldn't be associated with the brutal atrocities in Sudan," Augustus said.

Augustus added that there is a limited precedent for states to take action in a matter of international concern, but the severity of the situation in Sudan calls for special action.

"I think President Bush has been very slow to act, and quite frankly, we've all been slow to act," he said. "We need to have more of a sense of urgency given the information available about Sudan."

Michael Travaglini, executive director of the PRIM Board, spoke against the bill at a public hearing, saying the legislation would strongly inhibit the board's effectiveness.

"We weren't making a political comment on the situation in Sudan, but whenever these bills are supposed to cut business, we're consistently against it because that limits us in what we can do," Travaglini told The Daily Free Press.

According to the legislation, the state treasurer is responsible for determining whether a company engages in business in Sudan. But Travaglini said there is no clear way to make that distinction.

"That's really the 64,000-dollar question," Travaglini said. "These aren't companies that exist just to help Sudan. These are countries that sell goods and services to everybody, and Sudan just happens to be a buyer of it."

The bill calls for a gradual divestment of the retirement system's assets in marked companies but requires that all of the assets be removed within one year. If the state treasurer determines that a company has ended business operations with Sudan, the board is allowed to reinvest with that company.

Instead of withdrawing money from the companies, Travaglini suggested the state should maintain its investments and appeal directly to the companies to change.

"As an owner of a stock, we should use our power to go to the company and tell them to stop dealing in Sudan," Travaglini said.

Schuyler credited Travaglini with identifying possible solutions, but he said Massachusetts does not hold enough shares in these companies to wield the necessary power to convince companies to change their policies.

David Rubenstein, coordinator of the Save Darfur Coalition -- an alliance of 140 humanitarian and human rights groups -- hailed the bill, saying Americans have a heightened awareness of the genocide.

Reached by email, Rubenstein said that "Americans are unwilling to accept genocide and unwilling to fund those who make it possible by investing in the infrastructure and commerce of the dictators and tyrants running Sudan."

The mass genocide being carried out by the government-sponsored Janjaweed coalition in Sudan has been condemned by the U.S. government, but little has been done to stop it.

Taking the matter into their own hands, some lawmakers on Beacon Hill have decided that Massachusetts can at least do its part - by divesting from all companies conducting business in the conflict-ridden African country. They have proposed severing business ties that might assist the Sudanese government in funding the genocide, a step already taken by Illinois and New Jersey.

Though this might not significantly reduce the depth of the Sudanese government's pockets to assisting the killing of its own civilians, it will set an example for other U.S. states to follow suit, bringing the conflict in the Darfur region more into the national and international spotlights.

Massachusetts would be only the third state to divest money from companies that do business with the Sudanese government after President Bush labeled the atrocities there as genocide. This state has always served as a national model to government reform, and might influence other states that the inaction on the part of the federal government is no reason for inaction on the part of the states.

One opponent to the bill brought up a reasonable concern that the money invested by Massachusetts companies in Sudan is so small that divesting in these companies will do little to alleviate the situation in Sudan. He is also right to be concerned about the state's ability to determine whether a company has invested in Sudan.

But these concerns point mainly to the small, indirect effects this legislation would have for the people of Sudan, not the overall moral principle, which is more important. The mere possibility, no matter how small, that other states could follow suit and help bring an end to the genocide is alone worthy of setting such a precedent.

The government should make certain that a company does in fact do business with the Sudanese government before severing investments with that company, and should exert all forms of caution before taking that step. It may be a difficult task that involves certain risks, but nothing as risky as for the innocent civilians living in Darfur.

Of course the government also has the responsibility to serve its own people before the people of another country, but this legislation is not likely to have any negative effect on the people of Massachusetts, just like the people of New Jersey and Illinois are no worse off after a similar bill passed in those states.

There comes a time, also, when the government should not only concern itself with its obligation to the economy, but with its obligation to morality. This legislation is a practical and harmless way of fulfilling such an obligation. Divesting from these companies could mean reducing money that goes toward Massachusetts residents, but no money that comes from a government that sponsors genocide should be allowed to make its way into the state in the first place.

The more than 140 humanitarian organizations that are calling for the U.S. and other militaries to intervene in the Darfur region of Sudan, where mass genocide has left some 400,000 people killed since February 2003, are right to draw international attention.

With a failing war in Iraq, the U.S. government should obviously be more careful in deciding when and how to send the military into foreign territory, but the situation in Sudan is incomparable to the situation in Iraq before the first U.S. troops arrived.

The conflict in Sudan is a humanitarian crisis, and sending relief workers to put a stop to the violence there is not something will meet opposition by the rest of the international community. The U.S. intervened in Iraq in search of weapons that didn't exist; intervention in Sudan, on the other hand, would be in search of human rights abusers, who not only exist, but are actively killing their own people.

The situation in Darfur is an inexcusable human rights crisis, and no amount of concern is too much. Massachusetts does not have the authority to set U.S. foreign policy, but it is doing what it can to bring attention to a situation that deserves more than just inconclusive chatter.

STAND is pleased to invite you to the December Darfur Conference, December 2-4 at Harvard University in Cambridge, MA. Highlights include speeches and workshops from Eric Reeves, Brian Steidle, Mark Bixler, Jerry Fowler, and John Prendergast. There will also be workshops run by Americans for Informed Democracy, Ben Brandzel of MoveOn, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and Ryan Spencer-Reed. It will also feature the official launch of the Genocide Intervention Network and Alex de Waal's newest book. The focus of this conference will be to further educate activists in Darfur, the issues, and what else can be done to end the genocide.

In addition to college students, STAND welcomes and encourages students from all educational backgrounds.

In spring of 2006, former Sudanese slaves Simon Deng and Francis Bok will go on a Sudan Freedom Walk from United Nations Headquarters in New York City to the White House in Washington, DC. More details about the walk are available at http://www.sudanactivism.com/darfurwalk.

Consider supporting the Sudan Freedom Walk on your campus or in your community. Join them for part of the walk, or help host the walkers.

If you live or go to school along the route and would like to contribute by joining the walk, inviting the walkers to your campus, or organizing a place for the walkers to stay, please contact David Bredhoff, the lead organizer of the walk, at dbredhoff@yahoo.com.

Details to follow.

* Please note: the Freedom Walk has been postponed until spring of 2006.

Health workers will vaccinate 1.7 million people in Sudan against yellow fever in response to a current outbreak that has killed 131 people in recent weeks, the U.N. health agency said Tuesday.

The situation is worrisome because central Sudan — where all the deaths occurred — is not usually prone to yellow fever and the people there lack immunity to the disease, said Fadela Chaib, a spokeswoman at the World Health Organization.

"That makes it particularly urgent to get people vaccinated as soon as possible," Chaib said.

Vaccination is the best weapon against the spread of yellow fever, according to the WHO. A single dose of vaccine protects people for at least 10 years and perhaps for life, the agency says.

Yellow fever, a viral disease transmitted by mosquitos, is present in 33 African countries and some areas of South America and the Caribbean, but cases are rare.

People who contact yellow fever usually suffer in the first three to four days from high fever, muscle pain, headache, shivers and nausea.

About 15 percent of those infected then develop worse symptoms, which include jaundice and strong bleeding. Half of these people die within 10 to 14 days.

Sudan’s health ministry has reported 530 cases since an outbreak first surfaced in mid-November. All cases occurred in the South Kordofan State in central Sudan.

AUSTRALIA has been asked by the United Nations to nominate a member of the Australian Defence Force to fill the position of the next military commander of the UN mission in Sudan.

The Minister for Defence, Robert Hill, told the Herald yesterday [Tuesday], on his return from a visit to Australia's 15 troops in Sudan, that if Australia's nomination was accepted it would mean a "significantly higher profile" for Australia.

The Government has committed 15 troops and 10 police to the UN mission, which is overseeing the ceasefire agreement between the north and south of Sudan, bringing to an end a 50-year civil war. Senator Hill said that while initially Australia's contribution was seen as a humanitarian one, the importance of the region in the "war on terrorism" had increasingly become apparent to him. Sudan at one time provided support for Osama bin Laden.

Behind a table they have set up as a booth for donations, signatures and pamphlets, Jan Mitchell and other members of the Howard University chapter of Students Take Action Now: Darfur (STAND) zealously shout slogans, calling their fellow students to join the cause: "Please take a stand! Stop the genocide in Darfur!"

A 22-year-old senior anthropology major from Memphis, Mitchell has been a member of HU STAND since February. Mitchell and members walk interested students through a process whose three minutes could possibly save thousands of lives in Darfur.

The Howard chapter of the international student initiative was established in January of this year, after Dr. Eleanor King, a professor in the anthropology department, became aware of the international organization. STAND has locations in most U.S. states, Canada, and Great Britain. Founded by a student from Georgetown University, its goal is "to spread awareness about, take political action on and raise funds to relieve genocide in Darfur, Sudan."

Together with students like senior, Michelle Papillion, Howard instituted itself as one of hundreds of college campuses across the globe to fight the terror in Darfur. Teaching an Introduction to Cultural Anthropology course, King found it appropriate to find a more immediate base within the classroom.

"We, as a group, decided early on that we wanted to do two things," King said. "One, alert the campus and two, initiate the letter-writing campaign."

The group gathered as many Howard student organizations together to co-sponsor a panel discussion in March on the genocide in Darfur.

After finding the panel discussion attendance opportune to get signatures for the letter-writing campaign, the group of about 20 members was ready to carry out the political portion of the plan.

Though Mitchell said the enrollment number of the group fluctuates, they still find ways to keep the group effort strong and man the booths for student action and awareness.

"When the student arrives at the booth, they have a number of ways of supporting the cause," Mitchell said. "They can pick up Africa Action pamphlets, sign-up to be on our mailing list, donate to the Genocide Intervention Fund coin drive or sign the letters to government. Either way they will be helping the cause."

The Genocide Intervention Fund (GIF) [now the Genocide Intervention Network (GI-Net)] focuses its fundraising on supporting African Union peacekeepers in Darfur. The fund will seek to pull monies from established organizations, STAND being one of them. In the GIF's 100 Days of Action that began April 6th, it will work with the other organizations to campaign to raise $1,000,000 in support and 100,000 letters to the government urging them to take action.

The Howard chapter has committed to carrying out the visions of the international organization. The political goal was to urge government to include all of the provisions of the Senate Bill 495 and the House Bill 1424 in the FY05 Emergency supplemental. This bill was cited as the "Darfur Genocide Accountability Act of 2005" [sic], which would "impose sanctions against perpetrators of crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur and for other purposes."

The good news for STAND is that the bill was recently passed and the Senate has completed the Emergency Supplemental, which made necessary amendments to the bill. As appropriators looked for an offset for the funding, the final $90 million ($50 million for the African Union mission in Darfur and $40.5 million for disaster aid) was included in the bill using an offset from peacekeeping funds.

The problem lies in the budget cuts the bill is facing. Because the fund was based on an assessment of U.S. contribution, like peacekeeping missions, the final trade-off deal may not meet the lobbyist's entire goal to provide protection and security for the Darfurians.

On the HU STAND's booth they have laid out four separate stacks of papers: the letters to the House, the Senate, Secretary Condoleezza Rice and President Bush. They are asking Bush for security, accountability, humanitarian relief and a safe return of the Darfurians to the homes and villages.

Since February 2003, the Government of Sudan has organized a militia of Arab "Janjaweed" to starve and exterminate the Darfurians. Many political pundits have addressed the situation as a land war. The American government on July 22, 2004 labeled it genocide. According to the GIF, the Janjaweed have killed more than 380,000 and displaced almost 3 million and continues to kill 15,000 a month.

On July 30, 2004, the U.N Security Council Resolution 1556 called upon the Sudanese government to disarm the Janjaweed militia but 2 months later, the Security Council saw that the Sudanese government would not comply. Only recently has government given the genocide congressional action.

"It has to be stopped," King said. "People look at Bosnia, Rwanda, and the Holocaust and say, 'this should never ever happen again.' It's happening right now and not enough is being done to stop it."

King, whose mother was one of the first Red Cross nurses to aid in the concentration camps of the Holocaust, said that it is difficult to get the U.N. to act by sending troops. She believes there has to be a concerted effort on the part of all nations. Nevertheless, she is proud of the work of the students.

"I think that what the students are doing is great," said King. "It's the way it should be. Life and death is out there and these students are cognizant of this. They could be studying and doing schoolwork but they have chosen to take a stand."

Mitchell admits that she has neglected her schoolwork but felt it was worth it.

"Working with this organization has been so fulfilling. Though I may put school secondary at times, I feel that what I am doing is right. Something needs to be done," Mitchell said.

Mitchell said mobilizing the student body is a challenge but senses that more may want to be involved.

"I think Howard students are willing to be a part of the cause. I think they would rather jump on a bandwagon rather than construct one. They want a strategic plan to follow to ensure what they are doing will work," said Mitchell.

Despite the challenge, Mitchell and other members of HU STAND remain steadfast in their fight for Darfurians, even through finals as they continue holding meetings.

"A lot of students at this age wonder what their purpose is and what they will leave behind. For me, I think I have found it," Mitchell said.

Amid campus debate on Yale's possible holdings in companies that invest in Sudan, a University committee is working on a report that may prompt divestment from some of the stocks in its investment portfolio.

In the coming months, members of the Yale Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility said the committee will submit a set of recommendations listing companies of concern to a Yale Corporation subcommittee, which will consider divestment as a possible response to the report's claims. Yale President Richard Levin said the University will discontinue investment in Sudan if the Corporation Committee on Investor Responsibility recommends this course of action.

"If the committee recommended divestment, the University would take action," Levin said. "If that's what the Corporation committee recommends, the Investment Office will not make any future investments in Sudan."

The report will examine the companies Yale invests in and determine the nature of their involvement in Sudan, ACIR chair Geert Rouwenhorst said. The committee will advise the University to negotiate with the companies to reform their practices, but will suggest divestment if these measures do not work, Rouwenhorst said.

"If we happen to hold some of these stocks that are problematic, the report will recommend some action which may differ from company to company," Rouwenhorst said. "If a company were to act in a way to cause great social injury and if it was impossible or unlikely that constructive engagement with this company would lead to an improvement for the people of the Sudan, the last resort would be divestment."

The results of the ACIR report's research so far have been worthwhile, said Nick Robinson LAW '06, who works for the Law School's Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, which is assisting ACIR on the report.

"I feel like it's going very well. We've been able to determine a lot of information about several of the companies that are there that I don't think other universities have dug up," Robinson said. "I think it's been very worth the effort to research the companies themselves."

Some Yale students have criticized the University for not publicly disclosing its corporate holdings, some of which may have ties to Sudan. A Corporation decision to divest from Sudan would represent a significant improvement, Undergraduate Organizing Committee member Phoebe Rounds '07 said.

"We don't actually know how much and where they're invested in Sudan because they won't tell us, and they need to do that," Rounds said. "I think if the committee acts, this would be an amazing step forward for the University by providing that transparency in the future."

Earlier this month, the Yale chapter of Students Taking Action Now: Darfur launched an online divestment petition that has collected 690 signatures so far, according to the organization's Web site. The purpose of the petition is to show that there are people in the Yale community who are concerned about how their money is used, STAND co-chair Eric Bloom '08 said.

"We're planning to collect signatures on the online petition until that report is submitted, at which point we will also submit signatures to supplement the work the advisory committee is doing," Bloom said.